This decision affirms an order remanding this wage and hour case on the ground that the employer failed to sustain its burden of proving–in response to a factual challenge to its removal notice–that potential damages exceeded $5 million. A plaintiff may raise a factual challenge by attacking the removing defendant’s assumptions, even without providing any contrary assumptions or any evidence to rebut the defendant’s evidence. Here, plaintifff attacked the assumption that all defendant’s employees were members of the two subclasses, one alleging meal break violations, the other rest break violations. The employer introduced no evidence to show that that assumption was reasonable, so the district court did not err in remanding the case. The dissent points out, however, that the employer assumed only one meal break and two rest break violations per work week per employee so there was plenty of room in the employer’s figures to allow for some of the employees not to be part of the subclasses with meal or rest break claims.